Flyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1642 times:
If anyone knows:
I know that Burbank Airport is not the roomiest airport in the world, but....say an airline decided to fly there with about 20-30 departures a day. Would there be enough gate space to accomodate this many additional flights? Anyone familiar with gate space....or remote areas where planes can be parked and loaded?
WGW2707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1197 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
You know its funny, I pass by Burbank very frequently, every time I take the train down to LA. There is a Metrolink commuter train station right across the street from the airport, and that makes BUR super-convenient in my opinion. By train, it is a mere 20 minutes from downtown, and a mere 45 minutes from my house (which is conveniently close to another Metrolink station).
However, unfortunately the area around BUR is extremely built up. It is surrounded on all sides by shops, offices and industrial areas. So there is relatively little room for expansion of the airport. However, I do hope that the terminals are rebuilt soon. At present, there are no jetways, and neither Terminal A, which is the elongated building that most airlines use, or Terminal B, the high-tech metal shed used by United and American, have them. I would like to see both terminals over time demolished and replaced by larger, more modern terminals that are fully equipped with jetways (while of course leaving the historic original building and control tower intact).
Interestingly enough, I believe United was the airline that built Burbank in the first place, so it is fitting that it remains served by that airline.
Aaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1571 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
just a little more info...There was a plan to build a brand new terminal on a portion of land once occupied by the Lockheed-Burbank manufacturing plant.
The land went into escrow...just had to be purchased by the Burbanl/Glendale/Pasadena Airport Authority. Unfortunately, the process was bogged down by politics. The Burbank City Council wanted to (a) limit the number gates - original plan was 19, the limit would have been 14; (b) The city council wanted to impose a mandatory night-curfew at BUR. While there seemed to be some compromise on the number of gates, there wasn't any on the curfew issue. Both sides (Airport Auth. and City Council) took hard lines and subsequently went to court. Ultimately an impasse was declared. The date escrow was set to close passed. More than likely, that land will be slated for mixed use industrial/commercial use. The FAA, which had granted BUR monies toward the purchase has demanded that the monies be returned. Last I recall, there was some question as to whether BUR would be able to return the full amount, as somehow, BUR had spent a considerable portion of it.
Problem with the L. A. area in general...hard, if not impossible, to reach consensus on major infrastructure issues.
With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
Flyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1519 times:
Yes I remember reading about that Aaway. It's too bad, because BUR is in a great location as an alternative to LAX. I just wasn't sure if someone could fly there and be able to park their planes without much trouble...in between the big boys!
Coronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1617 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1472 times:
Aaway way to go! Thanks for all that great updated info on BUR! Wasn't it actually called United Airport at one time? When I showed up it was PSA, Hughes Air West and Continental. I think good ol' PSA keep BUR alive after LAX expanded. WN has taken over that role.
The terminal at BUR is only 300 feet from the runway! That is about as close as I have seen in the 250 airports I have checked out and from a spotters point of view ranks as one of my favorites. I took a picture of the model of the proposed terminal that was to be built on the Lockheed site and I think all they wanted to do was make the airport safer, not add more gates in the process. But people think if they can keep an airport unsafe, it will go away. Anyway, I think that is the reasoning. Who knows!
As for adding flights at BUR, I think you can probably fit in some commuter flights into BUR with Dash-8s and the like. But no more jets unless you coordinate your "3 flight a day" schedule and use an existing airlines' gate. Etching out one gate for 12-15 Dash-8 flights to near-by cities (SAN, FAT, MRY) should be possible, however, for a little intrastate carrier. If your thinking BIG, I'd say forget it!